|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man this is funny. I do feel sympathy for her. No, seriously I really do. But my sympathy for her is tempered with a bit of "welcome to the world of work ... nice to meet ya".
Men have had this same problem for YEARS. Lets break this down so I can be coherent.
Nuclear Pre-Feminism Family: Dad worked and mom took care of the domestic issues. When he came home he told her of his day and she of hers. They complimented each others skills/jobs and it all worked.
Nuclear Feminist Family: Mom and dad work. But when mom gets pregnant she stayed at home for a few months or even a few years. When she got back to work, if she ever did, she was upset because the people who had joined the company at the same time as her were now ahead of her. She complains about a wage gap. She sees a "glass ceiling" that punishes her for being a woman. When she gets home she wants her hubby to "understand" her frustration, but thinks he is whining about his tough situation. She gets a divorce (ahhh .. now we return to the article) and "things will be different". She soon finds that she needs to work full time and that unlike before, where her "needs were not being met", she HAS to work full time. And there is no excape hatch with hubby waiting to "eagerly" subsidize "their" lives. Nope, it's the rat race and she has less choices. So sad for cupcake. She now has the same situation where she wanted to be, studied to be, demanded to be, and now desperately wants to escape. But, now that she has ditched her meal-ticket/slave she has to work. And her cry is "poor me". Funny how I don't see a lot of sympathy, empathy, or fair-minded-realization in the Feminazi press about men who are feeling the same way. But cupcake is no longer as young as she once was, so getting a meal-ticket ... err .. sorry ... a man is not as easy. But, that's not HER fault sports fans, nope its the "beauty culture", "patriarchial society of youth", or "anti-commitment men" who are hurting her. It COULDN'T be that some man sees her situation and doesn't want:
1) someone else kids
2) someone who's work ethic is "get a meal-ticket" and stop working
3) a divorced burned out feminist who wants a life long subsidy while HE has no choice to stop working.
Nah, none of THOSE could POSSIBLY be it. I mean, I bet SHE would LOVE to get married and have her man stay at home and take care of the kids. She could slave and work and have no options. And when she gets home the "love of her life" could immediately hand over the kids after HIS hard day of watching them and the latest action flick he rented from Blockbuster *(which she paid for). And then listen to HIM whine about boredom, routine, and tell her how he needs to be emotionally stroked about what a good job he is doing and how she needs to listen to his problems. This POOR WOMAN feels like a "slave" (that WAS her handle on the forum) for having to constantly provide a paycheck. And since she mentions she was divorced, wonder if she is getting CHILD SUPPORT too? Does she feel bad for the man who paying for it working at a job HE may feel is boring and stressful? Is there even ONE word in this self-indulgent whine about how she should have appreciated what it was like for MEN who have done this all their lives? Any lightbulb appearing above her head and maybe a small acknowledgement of the FEMINAZI LIE that this life IS hard, IS underappreciated, and IS a LIFELONG commitment that is DEMANDED of MEN but which women feel ENTITLED to escape from?????????? Oh fuck me NO! Not one mention of how she realizes how hard this life is and that being a woman gives her a choice. Nope, and she doesn't say it but what she does NOT say is this: the man she marries will be in the same situation she was in (which she HATED), but thats ok, because cupcake here has decided that "well, that was fun, but enough for me". And since she wants to live a lifestyle of the lazy and self-absorbed (this unnamed man shoud be so fucking lucky) so she can "devote full time to her kids". Dont you fucking believe it. It's a dodge. Sure, she loves her kids. But what she REALLY wants is to sit at home, stuff her whining pie hole with BON BONs and watch TV like the little girl in a woman's body she is. And the few hours from when the kids come home until hubby arrives is SUCH A CHORE. Poor cupcake might have to get up off her ever widening ass and DO SOMETHING. But only for a few hours. Then when the slave ... errr ... husband gets home she can tell him all about HER thoughts of the day. WHO THE FUCK CARES what this lazy freeloader thinks!?!?! She should have his beer in her hand, be on her knees to sevice him, and lick the toe-jam between his toes for giving her a place to live while she gets progressively fatter, listens to empowering shows like "Orca-windbag" ... oh, sorry: OPRAH and occasionally moves a vacuum across a carpet once a week while the washer and dryer he bought DOES THE LAUNDRY. I got the ULTIMATE justice for this selfish bitch, give the kids to dad, let HIM get child support, let HER not have the option of not working (or face JAIL) and let DAD sit at home while HIS new wife works. This woman is SO fucking indicative of the women of today. Equality when it suits me, preferential treatment when the load is heavy.
(I was poorly trying to adopt Gonzo's style - but I now realized I am completely not in his league)
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your commentary just gets better and better!
Irony, facts, righteous indignation, all nicely accompanied with humor and insight.
I was laughing out loud at the scenario you so precisely described!
But, L.S., please remember, they're (womyns...) are truly the permanently "victimized" class.
Nothing you think, speak, or write will ever alter this Law of the Feminist Universe.
She's entitled to her largess via male servility, economic support, and "do what I choose when I choose" life options!
You sir, simply have chivalrous "duty" (doodie?) and a lifetime of obsequious submission to look forward to!
Keep writing, you insightful bastard.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 20, @09:08PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
erm... great rant but she mentioned that she has NO children. So I doubt she'll be getting child support, lol.
Although to be honest, I feel sorry for her yet at the same time I want to laugh. She's been sucked into to the career, career cry of feminists only to discover the office isn't so liberating as she thought. I'm like awww.. poor thing, mis-lead by those horrible feminists.
Yet at the same time, HAHAHA!! welcome to the world of work. It's what men have been doing for centuries, and now when you finally get there, surprise surprise it's not so liberating is it? Not so glamorous as you were told. Earning your own money it's that special now is it? Well tough. Get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mea culpa. I stand corrected. Good point, if I choose to rant I must be more correct to the facts. =)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @07:57AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Your commentary was pretty much on the mark, cause a lot of women like this exist. The only reason why i do feel sorry for her and her kind is because they may not have asked for this. Not all women are "feminists" and want equality or subscribe to the philosophy of feminism. So while a few of those exist that wanted to be equal and now want to go back to the way it used to be before cause this is way tougher, there are ones (like her, maybe) that never wanted any of this in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @12:26PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"Not all women are "feminists" and want equality or subscribe to the philosophy of feminism. So while a few of those exist that wanted to be equal and now want to go back to the way it used to be before cause this is way tougher, there are ones (like her, maybe) that never wanted any of this in the first place."
It looks like it's time for another feminist revolution. They have a voice on gender issues, much more than men. If women really want to change the damage created by 30 years of a rabid feminist movement, then they need to join sane, intelligent women like those in the Independent Women's Forum (IWF). If they are right wing Christian women they can join the , Concerned Women of America (CWA). If they want to read one of the most intelligent women who writes about gender issues, then they can get active on the Ifeminist site. For a dose of truth, compassion, and understanding there is Trudy Shuett at the Desert Light Journal. The time is long overdue for all women (and men) of good will to boldly confront and take on the militant, misandrist feminists who stole feminism.
We are overdue for a dose of tough love on the whole female gender. I am encouraged by this woman's travail, at the same time I am saddened by the good people who suffer. It is encouraging to see that women are realizing what the world is really like outside of the hysterical nonsense created by the militant feminist hate mongers.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @11:54AM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"3) a divorced burned out feminist who wants a life long subsidy while HE has no choice to stop working.
Nah, none of THOSE could POSSIBLY be it. I mean, I bet SHE would LOVE to get married and have her man stay at home and take care of the kids. She could slave and work and have no options. And when she gets home the "love of her life..."
The stay at home man could demand to be taken out regularly, because of having been "cooped up all day." Let her drag her tired butt out after slaving at work all day and learn what it feels like. One things for sure, there would be a whole lot less talking, when all she's thinking about is getting back home and putting her feet up after a hard days work (day after day without end).
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll not try to out-gonzo Gonzo,even tho I enjoy a good rant as much as anything else. This woman's whine reminds me of that office joke that circulates showing someone slapping their forehead and saying "OH NO!!!! You gave me exactly what I asked for!" You asked for it, you got it.
The feminidiots convincing women en masse that jobs were "liberating" instead of demeaning, boring, and often enslaving has to qualify as the greatest hoax in history. Now that all the cultural institutions which forced men into those old roles have been destroyed, it is men far more than women who have been "liberated".
As hard as the feminidiots have tried to deny biology, the cold hard reality of it is coming home to roost on women like this who have 1) passed their freshness date and are going to be passed over in favor of fresher fruit, 2) no doubt intiated the divorce that got her previous meal ticket off in the hook based on the serious delusion that there would be a never ending stream of men dying to climb Rapunzel's tower and lay their worldly fortune at her feet if she would just love them in return, and 3) probably has goosestepped right along with the "1 in 4", "ekwuhl pay for ekwuhl werk", and "no means no(unless I want it to mean yes)" mantras.
I've run across hundreds of women like this - complaining bitterly about every aspect of men, no matter how trivial like toilet seats and asking for directions, but totally clueless about why she can't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. Likely, she has made the same confusion between a bitter, narcissitic, hateful bitch and a "strong woman" that so many other women have, and sincerely believes that if she would say or do one nice thing for a man that it would be "caving in to the patriarchy."
The great thing is that because I don't have a bad Nordstrom's habit to support - my own or ANYONE else's, I can probably live much better on what she is making than she does. I can take the attitude "It's just a job" put in my hours and go home and not give a shit about who gets promoted.
Women need us like fish need bicycles? fine by me. Anyone ever give much thought to how much use a bicycle has for a fish? I'm not sure which would be worse - the slime or the rust.
My biggest fear is that "men" will slap Raymond-style prozac grins on their faces and bail the stupid bimbos out of the predicament they demanded to create for themselves. If she does find some well-off fool to get her hooks into, I won't have much sympathy for him. However, it is pretty unlikely that she will because for a couple of decades half or more of the degrees and good jobs which would enable a man to make that kind of money have gone to women.
The first two quarters of the gender war have been fought on women's home field - they have counted on the fact that we want them more than they want us to force us to put up with all their shit. But the third and fourth quarters are going to belong to men. An annoying, whiny, narcissistic princess-wanna-be has two things to offer me - nothing, and even less. I passed my "sexual peak" while Nixon was still president and saggy everything combined with that 40 extra pounds is about as appealing to me as dysentery.
Of course, when women wake up to how badly they have been hoodwinked by the feminidiots, they are going to be weeping and wailing for the Dudley Doorights of the world to come save them from their own stupidity and bad choices.
I really, REALLY, hope men don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello zenpriest,
I wish you would post here more often. It's always a pleasure to receive your insights.
I'll not try to out-gonzo Gonzo
I'm not sure it could be done. The dude should go pro.
Now that all the cultural institutions which forced men into those old roles have been destroyed, it is men far more than women who have been "liberated".
This is a fact that is just dawning on many people in (and out of) the men's movement. No marriage? OK. No children? Well, children are really the mother's kids, though the father has responsibilities under threat of being locked in a cage and tortured (prison). Whadda ya say we just hook up and then ramble on? Do I need a true friend, who will stand beside me in hard times? Of course I do. We became buddies in high school; we now share the cost of a house. And on weekends, we go out and hook up with attractive women. Of course, we record all of our sexual encounters, so we have a chance of proving our innocence if and when we're falsely accused of sexual assault.
"ekwuhl pay for ekwuhl werk", and "no means no(unless I want it to mean yes)"
The free ride is coming to an end. You want equal pay, sweetie? Put in the same hours as me. And produce as much as me per hour. You weren't hired to spend time with your kids. You've been hired to crank out widgets. And expect our female co-workers, who don't have kids, to back me up on that. And as for the "no means no(unless I want it to mean yes)", don't be surprised to see laws soon requiring that false accusers of crimes be subjected to the same penalties that perpetrators of the crimes face.
The first two quarters of the gender war have been fought on women's home field - they have counted on the fact that we want them more than they want us to force us to put up with all their shit. But the third and fourth quarters are going to belong to men.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind; the ball is in our court.
Of course, when women wake up to how badly they have been hoodwinked by the feminidiots, they are going to be weeping and wailing for the Dudley Doorights of the world to come save them from their own stupidity and bad choices.
I really, REALLY, hope men don't.
I know I'm predicting the future, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that men will not collectively fall into that trap.
Advances in reproductive technology made a radical alteration in male-female relations unavoidable. While feminism has destroyed the lives of many good men and boys, on a broad, social scale all that feminism has accomplished is the poisoning of the evolution of male-female relations. It has instilled anger and hatred on the part of women and anger and resentment on the part of men. Marriage and the nuclear family were mortally wounded by these technological advances. Men will soon care for themselves in the wasteland created by this and the venom of feminist hatred and lies.
Men won't fall, for much longer, for the lies and ploys. Things are changing, bigtime and fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @12:53PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
"I've run across hundreds of women like this - complaining bitterly about every aspect of men, no matter how trivial like toilet seats and asking for directions, but totally clueless about why she can't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her."
Women's Studies teaches that men and women's roles are learned, and that it is not biological differences that create the different roles that men and women live. The truth is our roles are determined by biology as well as conditioning. This is yet another deception, another lie that the militant feminist have cheated women and men with.
When militant feminists, and all women and men to a lesser degree, stop trying to change women and men to fit the contrived roles created by militant feminists, the sooner we can go back to working to just understanding the many innate differences between men and women as a condition of birth.
History will recall the plagues of the 20 the century as Militant Feminism, AID's, Ebola, SARS, etc. Militant feminism isn't a movement, it is a disease borne out stupidity taught in places like Women’s Studies Departments on college campuses, and created through a breakdown of the I.Q.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @01:08PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
A man needs a militant feminist like he needs a chauffeur for his truck.
A militant feminist needs her sexist cycle of stupidity like she/he needs her fishy platitudes to decieve women and men.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 21, @07:34AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I just posted this at Men's Hour Blog. There's a reference to back to here, so others can join in.
Women are liberated, right? They have choices, right? This woman doesn't feel liberated; she feels enslaved.
There's a discussion going on at MensActivism.org about this article Why my job sucks : Overwhelmed. You must read it to believe it.
You could feel sorry for her. However this is what most men have had for generations. Do you think the men, who went down mines or worked the farm or in factories, felt liberated. No, they felt obligated. Often they came home with a pay packet that they gave to their wives to feed the family.
The feminist notion that men had the "choice" of work, has always puzzled me. Ever since I was 15, for some 35 years now I have been expected to work. I have some choice about what to do, but it is limited by what is available and what an employer thinks I can do. No-one has offered me any alternative to working. Feminists sometimes claim that men work late to avoid going home and relating to their wives, but I say it is more likely that they feel they have to work hard to keep the job and if they don't keep the job, unemployment could cause them to lose their marriage. If any feminist wants to test this theory, then offer some men the same salary for staying at home as for going to work and see if they go to work.
Feminism was often about middle class women and what they wanted. If they thought marriage was boring and they could do without it, then all women could do without it. If they thought a job was exciting, then all women should have a job. Of course, I'm sure "slavegirl" doesn't want to turn the clock back, but maybe things weren't so bad after all. Maybe men didn't have it all their own way. Maybe women weren't entirely "oppressed" by marriage. These days Gloria Steinem, inventor of the phrase "A women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", is married; saying that things are different now. I didn't know fish could bicycle that well! So maybe marriage just needed some fine tuning, not abolition.
I notice that she is 33, divorced and has no children. This situation would not have occurred in previous generations. Divorce was practically unheard of. A woman made great efforts to choose well in the first place, and great efforts to keep the marriage together and having chosen a husband well would not criticise him unnecessarily for any minor details. Also, at 33, she would not have had no children in previous generations. One of the "benefits" of modern contraception. These days both marriage and family are under attack. Having a good husband and a family is something women have always naturally wanted and will, in some form, always continue to want. Women would do well to look at the motives of those undermining these traditional ideas. Feminism has never been about women having choices, but is about women having feminism. Feminism is about hating men, and hence hating marriage and family. It has always been about what feminists want, not what "slavegirl" wants. I hope she won't try and blame men or capitalism or something like that. I hope "slavegirl" and others realise that, whatever they think things were like before, that what they've done is, in effect, exchange the Czar for communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, at 33, she would not have had no children in previous generations. One of the "benefits" of modern contraception.
And, from what I've read, a "benefit" of some 40 million abortions in the US alone.
Modern contraception and safe, efficient, inexpensive abortions have led to the overhaul of male-female relations. Women have most options with respect to the former and total control over the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @01:45PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Another cry we will soon hear from the childless, "opt out" baby boomer feminists is, "Where's my pension plan?" and "It's so unfair that while I was making choices men were working 30 straight years and now have a pension." and "It's so unfair that all those men who were so easily exploitable are now not only aware of feminist scams, but now I'm old and they won't even look at me.
Not to worry, the females of our species have never had a problem going to old Uncle Sugar (Government as Daddy) with a new scam to steal men's money and make men's lives hell, while they sit on their privileged feminist butts and cry about how men have somehow oppressed them, and kept them from getting what they think they should have.
Perhaps that will just be the next turn of the wheel in the militant feminist "cycle of stupidity," that we are getting so used to seeing.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, it is going to be a lot more complex and fun to watch than that. As effective as women have been at applying the principle of the moment to use against men, as more and more women have taken on men's roles, their interests and circumstances have become more like men's. As women are forced into "wage-parity", not because they are making more but because men on the average are making less, wimmin like this are going to be saddled with an ever growing share of the tax burden required to keep the government tit they have been sucking on from going dry. The falseness of the femidiots division of the human race into classes based on sex and the universal commonality of "wimmins's interests" in opposition to men's interests is more and more going to turn into conflict between childless women and mothers. Not having any children whose "best interests" become the smokescreen for her scams, single women will be taxed at the same rate as men unless they can somehow hoodwink the politicians into passing the special "maleness tax" that the author of "Men are not cost-effective" proposed.
Even at that, any maleness tax by itself would be less than the current "daddy tax". At least taxes are based on real income as reported instead of "imputed income" as fantasized.
Women who have cashed in their lifetime annuity of marriage in exchange for the short-term value of property division and child support, are going to present a very interesting dilemma to politicians facing an electorate made up largely of children whose mothers destroyed their relationships with their fathers and often the fathers themselves.
The historical loyalty to mothers and honor of motherhood was largely based on women earning that loyalty and honor - something which few women of the past 2 generations have done. The Titanic analogy just keeps coming around again and again. Even though the officers shot men so that the wimminsanchillun got the lifeboats, once those wimminsanchillun got back to shore, no one wanted to take on the burden of supporting them.
Forty years from now, Ms "oh-but-I-don't-like-how-THIS-choice-turned-out" will be dealing with a completely bankrupt Social Security system, no "social security" of her own in the form of kids, and will probably be doing whatever is asked of her in that job she finds so "unfullfilling" simply because she knows there are plenty of kids a fraction of her age who would love to have it at far less cost to the company than she is being paid - with the bonus to the company of a whole lot more energy to put into the job. WHAT A DEAL for the corporation!!
The fatherless generation who watched their moms spending their "child support" on lottery tickets and cigarettes is going to be totally unimpressed by these wimmins's plight - particularly since the fathers who might have broken the sons to the harness and plow of the "protector-provider" role were thrown out of their lives before they even got them used to the saddle blanket.
But, probably the worst effect is that all this emotional DDT that women have been pouring on men all these years will have built up to truly toxic levels and the self-fulfilling prophesy of the feminidiots will be coming true in spades - men will have reached the point where they hold women in the same contempt that women have held toward them all their lives.
Look at black men these days - the welfare system has destroyed the middle class the same way it destroyed the black family and look at what black men think of black women -- "bitches and ho's".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @03:22PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"Women who have cashed in their lifetime annuity of marriage in exchange for the short-term value of property division and child support, are going to present a very interesting dilemma to politicians facing an electorate made up largely of children whose mothers destroyed their relationships with their fathers and often the fathers themselves."
--------------------------------------------------
When the mule's of women (men) stop pulling the plow,
and the government tit is whithered and chewed,
will women have the cash they love,
or just the scam that made them broke?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray is precisely correct in observing that good ol' "Uncle Sugar" has become the principle agent of abuse against men.
This is a logical outcome of women's socialization as adolescent girls, during which they become sophisticated in multiple tactics of getting others to do your "dirty work."
Rachel Simmon's excellent "Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls" documents how girls learn to use "third-party abuse" in the forms of rumor-mongering, false accusations, shunning, silent treatment, denial of complicity, withholding of friendship, destruction of reputations, and surrogate aggressors... to wage unrelenting emotional and psychological violence against their perceived adversaries.
Our current state-sanctioned DV terrorist system directed against men is inescapably connected to the pathological consequences of female socialization and women's adeptness in using third parties (read- the government) to carry out aggression on their behalf.
And, the big pay-off is that they get to continue their masquerade as "innocent victims."
It's worth noting that this deceit could not persist were it not for men's refusal to apply the "tough love" Ray recommends in his post.
Why does this not happen? Well, chivalry has innoculated men against seeing the true nature of our status as prey!
But I'm optimistic. The sugar cane plantation slaves eventually learned to see the master's "benevolence" for the disguised treachery that it was, and then they applied their torches to his house as testimony to their righteous indignation.
The House of Feminism is looking very much like wonderful tinder these days....
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @01:31PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism was often about middle class women and what they wanted. If they thought marriage was boring and they could do without it, then all women could do without it. If they thought a job was exciting, then all women should have a job. Of course, I'm sure "slavegirl" doesn't want to turn the clock back, but maybe things weren't so bad after all."
You hit the nail on the head. I think little "Ms. Slave Girl" should just put her new found awareness in the "Duh File," under the heading that talks about, "I was better off before, but just didn't know it, because all those nasty militant feminists deceived me.
When it comes to the agenda of the miltiant feminsts the phrase, "Let the buyer beware" was never more true. Looks like she's just another binge spender who bought into all those militant feminist lies, and now she sees the liabilities and debts she's run up.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOADS of people are unhappy/bored with their work or daily routine. She's not special or unique in any way whatsoever. The fact that she's a woman who is bored at work .... so what? Loads of women and MEN are clock watchers ... aren't really happy or fulfilled in their occupations. And that includes people who stay at home with kids.
Ever see the bumper sticker "I'd rather be fishing" ? That about sums it up for many people ... they'd rather be doing something else.
Fortunately, I love my work. But even then there are parts of it which are boring drudgery (paperwork). I'd say 60% of the time I'm doing stuff I love and would do even if I didn't get paid to do it. The other 40% of the time I muddle through. Big deal.
Do people actually expect to be happy and enterainted 24/7/365?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @01:17PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"Do people actually expect to be happy and enterainted 24/7/365?"
Isn't that a significant part of what the "liberation" in "Women's Liberation" was talking about? I think they used the word "fulfilled" instead of "happy and entertained." I hope you're not saying that the Wymen's Movement deceived wymen.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel a bit sorry for her, even though the vindictive part of me is saying "you're just getting what you asked for". In the bigger scheme of things I’m glad women are starting to voice these concerns, because it wasn’t long ago that feminism held an iron grip over women. Group think was the order of the day, and all would be assimilated. Dissolution with the collective was not allowed, and would result in instant vindictive retribution. Those days are gone, more question the ludicrous concepts pushed by the feminist movement and more are doing so openly. I think the end is in sight, but it’s still a LONG way off.
I've always thought of feminism as the ultimate clash of proverbs : "The grass is always greener..." collides with "an idle mind is the devils workshop”. Kind of like a “Perfect Storm” of societal upheaval.
Take a class of people who have benefited greatly from the Industrial Revolution, seeing their average workload reduce by half... two thirds... maybe more. Throw in mass media, the ability to deliver content to a large proportion of this group, content with the ultimate goal not to inform or improve lives but to keep these people addicted, coming back day after day (hopefully bringing their friends). Reduce the number of children from 5+ to 2. Finally, throw in a good helping of human nature, the need for challenge and accomplishment. Shake it up and you have America in the 60's to today.
The American housewife found themselves with LOTS of free time. What had been a daunting responsibility, maintaining a large household when everything was done manually, became a "push the button" job. What challenge making dinner? Drop the "TV Dinner" in the oven and push the button. Cleaning clothes... drop them in the washer and push the button. Food? Whip down to the grocery store... what's a garden? The list goes on and on. Jobs that had absorbed time and energy, and conveyed a sense of accomplishment and competence became trivial.
So now all these housewives find themselves with time to burn... enter TV! Soaps run all day, showing moms how exciting their lives could have been if only they'd dumped Paul when he went into the coma and started seeing Brian, or was it his long lost evil twin brother Chad, doesn’t matter… cause next week she can switch back. Now THAT’S living!
Between "All My Children" and "Guiding Light" you could catch Donahue... or Oprah, where you'd have found (almost like magic) that they knew all about the many problems you're having, and were quick to make you feel better by blaming others for everything. In fact they went out of their way to make sure you ended up feeling darn good about yourself at the end of every episode, you were great, smart, loving, desirable, perfect... and EVERYTHING wrong in your life is caused by someone else. Tune in tomorrow to find out what other things you're facing are really caused by other people.
In agrarian America, large families were the norm. Not only did you have to pluck your morning eggs from under a chicken and retrieve your morning milk from Besse, you had to pluck a LOT of eggs, and retrieve a LOT of milk. Families of 10 or more were common, and that’s a LOT of mouths to feed, a LOT of clothes to make (by hand), and wash (by hand), and a lot of growing minds and bodies to nurture. As family size shrinks, the needs of the children are reduced. Fewer demands, mouths to feed, dress, help with homework, discipline, and schedule the lives of. It seems to me from talking to many mothers out there that this was the most challenging and rewarding part of being a housewife. They felt a sense of accomplishment from seeing a small army of lives spark, grow, and finally move out to establish their own families. It must have been something. As men we can share in the feeling of “a job well done”, but the mothers were with these children day after day, they had the prime share of the responsibility to shape them into the adults they would become. Over the last 40 years that privilege has been propagandized into an onerous burden, young women have been trained that children are the yoke that chains them in servitude instead of the gift that they truly are. America’s children have become the greatest victims of the perfect storm.
When I think about feminism, I don’t see its roots in “choice” or “equality” or any of the other Politically Correct concepts that we hear. I see its roots in the Industrial Revolution and human nature. Women, just like men, need challenge. We all need to have something to strive for. We need to accomplish and feel that what we do has merit, and at a very basic level we need to be BUSY. I think I was in 5th grade when my teacher (a Nun) first introduced me to the proverb “an idle mind is the devils workshop”, no doubt as a justification for giving us lots of homework. That saying has stuck with me for these many years, and whenever I see people demanding change or just making trouble I always think of this proverb and try to determine if it fits their situation. It almost always does. In a very real sense I see feminism as women saying “homemaking is not the full time job it used to be… and we demand new options that will keep us busy”. Of course you have your nutbags who want to parasitically feed on the unrest cause by these changes, but in the big scheme of things they’re not the ones who matter. Its everyday folks who feel the pendulum shift, and when it’s shifted far enough they’ll apply a corrective force to bring it back in line. I see this happening more and more today… and I think more and more women are seeing what this woman is seeing. Feminism aint the panacea it’s cracked up to be for women.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, (biscuit King)
I like your post a lot. I know that many here, including (lol, ok especially) myself love a good rant. Your post was really thought out and had a lot of good points. People do like to feel accomplished and have a sense of see those accomplishments. I think that in many ways women have gotten a raw deal. How so? Women are more emotionally based. Yes, it's a stereo-type, but just go with me for a few ticks of the clock. The emotional titilation of television to rev up their "networking" (read: gossipy) nature, and television, for men's programming or women's, doesn't discipline you or tell you you are wrong (if they want to stay in businesss for very long). So you get a group of shows that have progressively pushed the envelope that constantly let women see other problems, but without any real insight (often, but not always) on what may be the cause. The kids are sluts: must be their friends, not that the mom/dad is not taking the time to instill values. Friends betray you, has to be society, can't be that you hang out with a group that is just like you and you finally got a wake up call. Husbands cheat, see: happens all the time and here are 4 horror stories from completely innocent victims. Wives cheat? See: can't be their fault, must be that the husband drove them to it. Etc etc. But the group think is definately a women's weakness that television exploits. Men tend not to group to gripe as much, which is why many men in the men's movement and the women who help us (Biscuit Queen) have friends who think we are nuts. Men don't network as much, women do it like they breath. It's just a new adaptation on the old "gossip line" from small towns. But with an entire country to pick from the gossip is always the best and the TV Producers are playing their audiences like instruments.
I think that people need to have evident accomplishments in their life and the convenience items we have created DO help, but the time spent before they came has not been constructively filled. Here is where the Feminazi lie machine comes in. I know it's an easy theme to sing, but I think it's a valid argument. The Feminazis tell the women: go out get a job, get empowered. But the job market is a rat race. WE know that, and women are finding it out too. Many PEOPLE would love to have someone support them while they "home-make", but in today's economy it's just not often possible. And in the end, with the family structure taking such a beating when reality meets head on with propaganda: we all lose.
Peace
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have GOT to start previewing my posts. I can't stand my grammatical errors and my incomplete sentences, but do I PREVIEW like I have the option to: noooooooooo, that would make to much f*cking sense. I am so freaking blond sometimes. ACK!!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't feel bad... I spell checked my mumblings and still got disillution swapped out for dissolution. Can't fix it so no sense worrying about it.
Every once in a while I get into one of my meadering retrospective moods... and now I've got somewhere to post it, instead of driving Jen crazy... oops... too late. There seems to be a core of posters here who tend to wax poetic on occasion (or is that polemic? :)), makes for some fun reading.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, Steven -
OUTSTANDING posts!!! One of the most exciting signs I have seen coming out of the so-called "men's movement" is good critical writing that presents a third alternative to feminist theory - i.e. "throughout history men have conspired to be mean to us" and traditional conservative thinking.
If there is to be any hope for the men's movement, I wholeheartedly believe it lies in men looking that those 2 choices being forced on them today and choosing "none of the above." I was as serious as a heart attack when I said that the net result of the past 4 decades of social upheaval will be liberate men far more than it will ever liberate women - for one major reason: women really don't want to be liberated, they want to be taken care of, and the two are mutually exclusive.The lockstep of groupthink fits the female psyche far better than the male psyche - women ask for directions and do whatever they are told, men do like to find their own ways.
Your analysis of the historical trends and forces which brought us to this point were dead on the mark, Dave. There are a few points I would like to add.
It was the industrial revolution and the need for a captive workforce which began the process of enclosing men off their land. Even when the land was owned by the aristocracy, most people were directly responsible for their own lives and thus had some degree of control over them. One's life and one's "livelihood" were one and the same, and life was everyone's full-time occupation.
As men were forced off the land and into the cities where the factories were, to serve as the captive workforce, the rough and informal divisions of labor between men and women became rigid. Before that, everyone milked the cows, gathered the eggs, cooked periodically, and did what cleaning was necessary. People's days tended to be varied, and because their work had direct tangible result that was obviously related to their survival, no one got "bored." But factory work was entirely different than life, and the worlds of "work" and "home" began the process of being separated and isolated.
In the US, there have been two major transition points in the 20th century. About 1920 we passed the crossover point from a majority agrarian and self-sufficient, rural, way of life to a majority wage-based and inter-dependent, urban way of life. The great depression hastened this process as many families lost their land and were forced to seek work in the cities.
Then WW II came along and bolted twin 4 barrel carbs on the process. First, millions and millions of men were conscripted off the farms that some families had managed to hold onto, and sent off to scramble to survive and hopefully not get their guts blown out. Second, Industrial capacity expanded geometrically fueled by the war machine. This pulled even more men off the farm and that still wasn't enough of a captive workforce so the "Rosie the Riveter" legend got born.
When the war was over, EVERYONE recognized that these men needed SOME form of compensation for the risks they had taken and wounds and losses they had sustained (rent "The Best Years of Our Lives", if you can find it) so the GI Bill was enacted to give these men low-cost educations and low cost loans for housing, all with the promise of a "better life". The massive wartime production capacity of the industrial sector began churning out consumers goods instead of tanks, planes, and bombs. This was the era of "planned obsolescence" to assure continuing markets and avoid market saturation by building a 3-7 year life into most products.
Life in 1950s suburbia was indeed sterile. (Read "Couples" by John Updike for some great examples). The early cold-war pressure for conformity combined with the emergence of true mass media took normal individual variation to an all-time low. Before, people in Arkansas dressed and spoke like other people in Arkansas and ate what other people in Arkansas ate, and those who lived in Wyoming did as others in Wyoming did and Arkansas and Wyoming were quite different and most regions were totally unware of each other except as answers to geography questions. Nation-wide media created nation-wide fashions, and products, and the beginnings of brand-name mania.
About 1960, the second major transition of the 20th century occurred - for the first time in history we reached the point where there were more people selling or managing something than were PRODUCING ANYTHING! We changed from a nation of PRODUCERS to a nation of HANDLERS. This is the point where value and economics became totally separated from anything tangible. It would be several more years before we started hearing the idiotic term "information economy" (try eating "information" when you are hungry) but we began a revolution as significant historically as the agrarian revolution. If one person produces something and 2 more handle it before it reaches the final consumer, the final price must be inflated at least 3 times over its intrinsic value in order to provide livelihood for these two superfluous people.
The biggest problem we are facing today is that the vast majority of people have become superfluous. Taking your example of the agrarian family, Dave, a dozen people might produce enough food and fiber to satisfy the needs of maybe 2 dozen, if they were hard-working and lucky. Today, the average American farmer produces enough to meet the needs of 130 people.
So, people today have jobs like clerking in convenience stores, selling shit to idiots and assholes. They sell liquor, cigarettes, junk food, and junk drinks to addicts and other less-than-fun people. And, when they get home all their family sees of them is their temperament.
Just as people in the 1930s flocked to movies where they could forget about their own mundane lives for 2 hours, people for the past 40 years or so have escaped into the more exciting lives portrayed on TV.
Along the way, they have totally lost their ability to think critically. I remember years ago, before I shot my TV, watching some cop show and taking note of one of the character's apartments. Designed by some studio stylist, this fictional apartment contained at least $50,000 worth of furnishings, for someone who probably made $10,000/year. The fundamental lie of televison is that it bears ANY resemblance to reality WHATSOVER.
The brain-dead looked at these shows, compared them to their own shoddy lives on $10,000/year, and concluded that there was something wrong with their lives - not that what they were being shown was totally bogus.
In the late 1960s, the first of the wave of boomers began to come out of college and hit the job market. Not only did the economy have to absorb the largest cohort ever to enter it, it had to absorb an almost equal number of newly "liberated" women. What happened next was analagous to having one gallon of milk, and 16 people that you wanted to give an 8 ounce glass of milk to. No problem, there are exactly 16 glasses in a gallon. But, wait, you have twice as many people - all of them expecting a full glass and MORE!!! The answer is simple - you take the one gallon of milk and dilute it with 2 gallons of water. Now, you are able to give 32 people a glass and half of something, but it isn't "milk" anymore.
In 1952, a couple bought the house I live in now for about $8000. They drove a car that cost less than $2000, brand new. ONE car. The two biggest ticket items in life - total, about $10,000. Last year, the house across the street from me, which is only different from my tract house in minor cosmetic ways, sold for $130,000. Each of the working couple drives a car with a sticker price of about $35,000. Their cost for what $10,000 bought in 1952 - $200,000. The one gallon of milk has now been diluted with 19 gallons of water.
Of course the cars are different and my illustration is overstated to make my points -
1) that people's wants and expectations drive their consumption far more than their needs, and
2) that those expectations have risen so much and the real buying power of wages been diluted so much that it really does take 2 wage earners now to have the comparable "middle-class" lifestyle that used to be achievable on one income.
We no longer have an economy based on tangible value, but on artificially inflated value of bullshit. For reasons far beyond the scope of this already very long tirade, some people will pay $50 for a $10 sweatshirt with a $40 name on it.
Go figure.
Commissions on the status of men are all well and good, but to me they miss the point. For years I have been fighting against a "masculism" that to me was nothing but "me-too-ism" -- as in "well, we men can be VICTIMS TOO!!!"
We can be, but if we wait for the government to save us with what time and energy it has left over from saving "wimminsanchillun" we have lost and we are lost.
The heart of the slave lies in waiting for someone else to set him free. He never can be.
Every man out there - at least those who are not yet under control of the police state - has within his power today to do something to fight all the forces which have been trying to enslave him -- don't buy their shit. Don't watch TV, don't buy jewelry, never pay one dime more for anything than it is intrinsically worth just because it has some asshole's name on it who has pandered to women by painting you as an idiot.
Let women buy their own drinks, trips to Paris, and if they want to redecorate the house every 2 years and buy new furniture - let them pay for it. They have half the jobs now that used to go to you so you could live up to your assigned role of specialized beast of burden bred and trained for the purpose of dragging around a financially and emotionally dependent wife and family.
The biggest problem I see with any attempt at a "men's movement" is that "men" are not the homogeneous group we are painted to be, and are instead about 3 billion individuals. At best, we might be able to divide ourselves into about 3 major groups, based on age and the social conditions we have experienced and the stage of life we are in.
There are the old war-horses like me who are totally fed up, and on the far side of the gauntlet of the reproductive years. We could give two shits about women because they are little more than annoying, self-centered, whiny, demanding, weak men from our perspective.
There are the men still in the reproductive years - young adulthood to middle age. Raised with feminism, like all children have always done - they believed what their parents indoctrinated them to believe. They didn't live through pre-feminist history like us old war-horses and thus have had to figure out that it is all bullshit rather than just knowing it because we were there and were witnesses too.
And then, there are the "Ritalin boys". What amazes the shit out of me is that no one seems to have figured out yet (at least, NO ONE ever seems to talk about it) that there is a 3 - 4 decade lag in the impact of changes in social values. The backbone of the middle-class today are boomers who were children in the 50s and 60s. What will the Ritalin boys and the fatherless girls be like when they become the "adults"?
You are right, Thomas, marriage is dead as a hammerhead. Developmental psychologists have known for 150 years that a person's basic world view is pretty much set by age 7. All these "relationshit skills" they are going to push as the way to "defend marriage" aren't going to accomplish jack-shit. Durable marriages will be like dodo birds to these kids - things they heard about but don't know of anyone who has ever seen one because they died out years before they were born.
The iceberg of feminism has collided with the Titanic of marriage - and it is headed for the bottom. The officers are shooting men to keep the lifeboats for the wimminsanchillun, but the part of the story which no one remembers is that once those wimminsanchillun got back to shore - no one wanted to take them on to support them. As pointed out in the video, 80%-100% of those in prison grew up in fatherless homes. Now, think of the impact of the "pathology boomers" when they get dumped on the mainstream. As fatherlessness has increased ten-fold, likely the prison populations will do the same after about a 30 year lag. Add another 30 while the psychobabblers figure out their programs don't accomplish shit, and it's pretty obvious that there are a few rough decades ahead.
I had a real interesting conversation with a former-feminist-with-second-thoughts. She thought she was being oh-so fair when she claimed she would give up her female privilege and say "flip you for that seat in the lifeboat, mister." It is amazing how much people who are so privileged just take it for granted. I pointed out that men, in general, are stronger than women, in general, and that if men really were anything like the feminidiots have painted them to be that the response would be - "FLIP ME?!?!?! Hell! Get your ass out of MY seat, bitch."
The women who have gone feral are in for a very rude surprise when they start to confront truly feral men. Eminem and most other rap artists are just the blip on the radar screen before the main fleet comes over the horizon.
Time to get busy, guys, and start tearing up decking planks to build your own rafts.
I got this funny feeling that a hard rain is getting ready to fall.
There y' go, Thomas. Thanks for the kind words, but I am so burned out after more than 30 years in the trenches that my style has become so abrasive that I tend to polarize people more than I accomplish anything else. (To Jen - take a break before you lose your effectiveness. Don't worry, you won't be able to leave it alone for long.)
I have one fundamental belief about men which few seem to share - that our civilization really was built on men's backs, and when the culture alienates a large percentage of men against it, that culture won't survive long. I don't have to start a fire to burn something down - I only have to look the other way and refuse to put it out when it starts for some other reason. I think this culture, and women, have made a huge mistake by alienating men against them.
I think we should just go Gonzo on all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great posts both... this is what keeps me coming back. Well, this and getting to see who gets reamed out by Gonzo next.
I guess at heart I'm an optimist, so while I know that it's going to be a tough road for the next generation or two I think we'll come out of it. As much as the environuts would have us think were some sort of plague on the world, in reality we're just another cog in natures machine. One thing about nature, it has a way of correcting inbalances. Everywhere I look I see pendulums swinging, and feminism is no exception. The rapid rate of change in technology has upset the perverbial apple cart, and it's going to take a long time to settle down again (If we can manage to let it).
I also think there's a population level that this planet can support, and right now that arc is reaching its terminus. Problem like population control are looming that'll require some hard decisions on the part of humanity. It's all well and good for us to poo-poo China's tough stance on procreation... but lots of other countries (India next) will be faced with making the same call. If we don't act to correct imbalances... Nature will, and it won't be pretty.
The list of issues in need of addressing is endless, energy policy, fundamentalism, the failure of Regional and Global Beaurocracy to accomplish much of anything (a big shortcoming of the Democratic process as it currently exists), and at a very basic (therefore very important) level, the breakdown of the nuclear family. The loss of family values concerns me more than anything else. I agree with you ZenPriest that civilization was built on the backs of men, and those men were built by the loving guidance of TWO parents, masculine and feminine, responsibility and fogiveness, discipline and acceptance, the job CAN NOT be done by one person, and the job CAN NOT be delegated by "it takes a villiage blah blah blah" platitudes. Next time you see some brat acting like an asshole, ream the little bastard out and see how long it takes for you to end up in jail. Call me old fashioned, but for me blood is thicker than water, and always will be... villiage my ass.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @11:05AM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"So now all these housewives find themselves with time to burn... enter TV! Soaps run all day, showing moms how exciting their lives could have been if only they'd dumped Paul..."
"Between "All My Children" and "Guiding Light" you could catch Donahue... or Oprah, where you'd have found (almost like magic) that they knew all about the many problems you're having, and were quick to make you feel better by blaming others for everything."
We had a chance to be in the audience on one of these shows lately (not one listed here, but like them). The lady booking the audience made a statement that fits right in here. She said, "We need more men in the audience. We get lots of stay at home moms." I had just told her I was trying to get some guys, but it was difficult, because we all had to work. Not one guy was able to make it.
Warren Farrell was half right when he said something to the effect that. "Men forgot to liberate themselves, when they helped women liberate themselves. The other half of that, is that women haven't done much that I can see to help men be liberated from their oppressions.
It's no wonder there is such great difficulty getting a men's movement going. Men are too busy working and dying, while women are too busy further improving the quality of their lives at the expense of ours, or complaining and lobbying about how bad they've got it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is *WHY* the full measure of the meaning of "equality" needs to be released on the backs of women. Once they see what it is about, they tend to become un-feminist as fast as they can.
Let them see that "head of the household" is a burden. Let them find that having family and career is often mutually exclusive, let them struggle in the rat race, face drudgery and toil, get their heart attacks, go overseas and die.
Yeah. Yeah. It's harsh. But people tend not to learn about playing with fire until they get a good blister or two on their grubby little nosepickers.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a post just bringing up the fact that most men have no choice but to deal with her situation for their whole lives, but i tried to do so in a non-confrontaional way. more to make them think than to slap them upside the head. We'll see if anything comes of it.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @03:26AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
“"I don't even want a "career" anymore. I just am there because I'm divorced and need to pay bills."
Take it like a man. Get tough or die.
"And no, I don't want a sugardaddy so I can leave the kids with the babysitter and go to the tanning salon and shopping. I am fully willing to uphold my part of the bargain of taking care of the kids, cleaning, shopping, house whatever. I know it's not easy but it's what calls to me. When you even mention this to people, even other women, they look at you like you're from another planet but this was the norm from the dawn of time until about 30 years ago."
Too bad lady. You may want to “opt out” of your liberated life, but you’ll have to take that up with your own gender, because by doing that you'll just reinforce statistics that prove there’s a glass ceiling for women. We can’t have that. You have to do your part to shatter the mythological glass ceiling that women are struggling against even if it costs you everything you desire as a woman, thanks to women like this one:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/college/faculty/coll_pr es_robertson.html
Considering the fact the glass ceiling really doesn’t exist, it looks like you better get used to working 40 years of slave labor and then just dying like your male counter parts. Silly woman, your life has been determined for you by militant feminists who have power and control over everything in your now meaningless life. How do you like your liberation now? I have no sympathy for any woman who cries this tune. I guess I've just heard that lie about the privileged patriarchy one to many times. Let the entire feminist gender drink deep the bitter pain that accompanies the privileges that men enjoy. Let them drink so they may be less fools than they are. It appears some are learning, while others are promoted to positions, where they may flaunt their ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You may want to 'opt out' of your liberated life, but you?ll have to take that up with your own gender, because by doing that you'll just reinforce statistics that prove there is a glass ceiling for women."
You got the nail right on the head here, and DAMN am I glad to see men finally beginning to point out stuff like this. Any guy who would bust his ass to give cupcake what she wants NOW is a traitor to his gender and I think the rest of us should take him out back and beat him with rubber hoses. Let some poor fool take over her job, start working 55 hours per week to her 37.5, let her shuck out a kid or two that she can use as weapons against him to claim 60% or more of what he earns from doing what she didn't want to do, and all it is going to do is give more ammunition to the sob sisters shrieking how women STILL only make 13 cents for every $ a man makes.
The part that chaps my ass the most is:
"I don't even want a "career" anymore. I just am there because I'm divorced and need to pay bills."
Ah yes, feminism is all about "choice" and now this woman wants some man to stick HIS neck in the noose so she can "choose" to blow off the career that she "chose" to have - choices WITHOUT consequences, chocolate cake without calories.
Oh, and while we're at it, she wants some poor schmuck to give her the "choice" to have nice comfy marriage to replace the one she had, and the odds are 80% that SHE "chose" to throw away. Given the fact that remarriages fare far worse than first marriages, the odds are slightly more than even that even if some fool offers her what she wants on a silver platter that she will exercise the perennial right of a woman to "change her mind" and end that one too, while still feeling entitled to at least half of everything he has manged to build up doing the job that he rescued her from having to do.
Some guy above said he did feel sorry for this woman because she didn't ask for this. Every time I see this kind of thinking from men my heart sinks and I get this intense urge to say "fcuk it" and go fishing. Of course, this is the sympathy reflex that women have used totally without remorse to milk us dry. I wonder how many "wimmins's studdees" courses she took, and how many feminist lies she has mindless parroted like a chatty Cathy doll. How many times has she spouted the "1 in 4" statistic, or used the term "glass ceiling" or repeated any other of the lies of feminidiocy?
It isn't just the lie about "universal male power and privilege under the evil patriarchy" that I am sick to death of hearing, it is nonsense about toilet seats, and asking for directions, and house cleaning, and all the other manifestations of the female moral superiority complex which comes out as "2 legs good, 3 legs bad", "the way we women do it is right and the way men do it is stupid."
By the direct admission of the sob sister referenced in this URL:
"women account for 56 percent of college enrollment in the country, according to the U.S. Department of Education. And studies have shown that women are more likely than men to earn bachelor?s degrees ? in every state, every income bracket and every racial group. Women earn 57 percent of all bachelor?s and 58 percent of all master?s degrees."
Yet she, like all the other femi-liars, compares recent female graduates to the men who have spent 30-40 years building their careers and climbing to the top of the income ladder. Because the road to the top is not well-paved, well-lit, and furnished with some nice person every mile to ask for directions, that is incontrovertable PROOF of a world-wide and history-long conspiracy of men to spend every spare moment thinking of nasty things to do to women.
This Piedad also provides a perfect example that women really stink at math. 100%-58%=42%. 58%-42%=16%. For every 100 college-educated persons, there will be a surplus of 16 women who cannot find a mate in their expected socio-economic class. Every guy who even MIGHT be willing to give Ms. now-I-don't-like-my-choice what she had, threw away, and now wishes she had again, would have to compete with HER to get that boring job that he might in 10 years or so of herculean effort be able to build into a living for himself and a family.
Apparently women like this believe that financially successful husbands grow on trees.
The biggest problem I have seen in more than 3 decades of trying to fight this necrotic fungus which has crept through the culture is that everyone needs for men to keep doing what they have always done, and are counting on men continuing to do it even while they pass new laws every day making it impossible for men to do it. People who talk about "going back" to any set of values or social customs which existed before are dangerous dreamers. There is no "going back" - we are in the middle of the war, fatherhood and maleness have been completely criminalized and pathologized, and we are all now "gender-Charlie".
(for those of you old enough to remember Vietnam)
As Jen pointed out in one of her posts, her women friends are so drunk on the power they now have that there is no way they would ever speak out on behalf of men. The most privileged group of people to ever exist in the world - the American female - have ruined the deal for themselve by tipping the scales too far in their direction, and by runaway greed that drives them to keep demanding more no matter how much they get.
These women are no more likely to suddenly get a conscience one day than the slave owners were 140-300 years ago. That is one of the darker and uglier sides of human nature that I have come to see through the years. Women are still going to snap up calendars that talk about how stupid we men are as fast as they are produced, IF we keep giving them everything they want and ask for while allowing them to do so.
Finishing the job of "equality" is going to be men's job. Every time we hear about "wage-parity" we are going to have to counter with "body-bag parity". There is a bill pending which would reinstate the draft, for women as well as men. Every man out there should be 100% behind it.
As Dave said in his response to one of my previous posts - we are in the middle of major social changes. I don't think most people realize how major or what the full implications of them will be. The goose which laid the golden eggs of the ability to "choose" to be a stay-at-home wife and mother has been killed, dead, Dead, DEAD!!! And dead is dead - it ain't coming back to life to miraculously start laying those golden eggs again. That is the message and lesson in that fable.
I believe that men MUST begin to demand respect for themselves and what they do as a non-negotiable pre-condition to doing it. Instead of begging for respect like whipped cocker spaniels, pathetically grateful for any crumb we get and for any time our mistresses lay down their rolled up newspapers and benevolently decide not to smack us - THIS TIME - we have to "just say no". No marriage, no kids, no "choice".
The reason I feel absolutely NO compassion for women like this is that even though she might not have "asked for it", women of her ilk have done absolutely nothing to stop it. I have watched women ride along with the feminidiots giddy with their newfound power, all the time able to disclaim any responsibilty for the excesses which have given them that power. The women I see all around me are like Jen's friends - unwilling to part with one speck of their power - not like Jen or Trudy Schuett.
The wife of a friend of mine tried this ultimate dodge on me - "feminists do not speak for all women." Yes, they do, because the rest of these women are remaining silent. I have been on women for years with one message - "counter-voice." For all their flakiness, at least the Greens understand that when something you value is being destroyed that you have to ACT to preserve it. Where have the women willing to speak out on behalf of their husbands, fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, and sons, been for the past 4 decades? - playing the game of "well, I'm not a feminist, but I do believe in ekwuhl pay fer ekwuhl werk". So do I. But, I also believe in equal work for equal pay.
Now that women have destroyed ALL the compensations to men for the male half of the deal, and demanded ALL the goodies but none of the costs, it is long past time for men to give them what they have been demanding, and just quit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women have long understood that by withholding their "charms" and their sexual availability, they derive their power.
Passive-aggressive? Of course.
But then, women have forever been the exemplars of indirect aggression!
Now, in the face of feminist tyranny, men must take a lesson from their "better halves" ...
Withhold your chivalry, your income power, your servitude, your protection, your naivete, your deference to a long-gone notion of romantic femininity.
Like womynz... men do have a choice.
They can simply say -- "Homey don't play that!"
Game over.
Now, shall we renegotiate a truly egalitarian social equation that victimizes neither gender?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we all live through this slow-motion train wreck, new information keeps becoming available to us that changes the entire perspective.
I've seen something referred to as a "marriage strike" mentioned quite a few times on these pages. I think there are some fundamental differences between what is happening and the connotations that the use of the word "strike" implies.
In the late 1950s, Ford Motors brought out a car model aimed at the luxury market that was such a bomb with buyers that its name is still synonymous with mis-judging the market. No one EVER talked about people going on an "Edsel-buying strike." It was simply a product that no one wanted. It wasn't even a "boycott", which I think is a bit closer to what men are doing today than a "strike". Both of those terms carry the connotation of a TEMPORARY change in behavior until conditions change - and I don't think that is what is going on at all. I believe we have a FUNDAMENTAL shift in social values and behavior that is NOT going to revert to old patterns no matter what happens in the future.
I saw recently that the number of adults currently married is now only a fraction of a percent over half - something like 50.7%. No more than 4 years ago, it was over 54%, but declining rapidly. I predicted that by 2010, married people would be in the minority, and I may have missed my guess by as much as 6 years. I think it is highly likely that before the end of 2004 that the marriage rate will drop below 50%. I can't imagine that it will take any longer than the end of 2005, at the latest.
I heard an interesting little factoid on the radio a few weeks ago - 43% of all single women have not had a date in the past year. Of course, being mass media they didn't give any real source, and the ostensibly male announcer took the spin of "what's up with this!?!?! Get off your butts, guys and start doing your JOB!!!!!" But, this points out the fact that if you look between the cracks of the bullshit that a very different picture of the REAL demographics out there begins to emerge.
As a fiftysomething male who has lived his entire adult life in the trenches of this stupid war, I can tell you that the reality of it verus what you see in the media is about as different as the "official" story of Jessica Lynch differs from the one she is now telling. And the most significant factor over the next few years is going to be that most boomer men and women are now going through the change of life. Some people have been calling it "male menopause", and others have been using the term "andropause", but I prefer the term "horny-pause."
All behavior in nature is purposeful, and it makes perfect sense that at about the age that females of a species start to lose their ability to bear children that males of that species would lose their interest in the activity that creates children. And, what level of interest they do retain gets triggered by women in their peak reproductive years, not dried up old husks.
In a natural population, except when the females are in season the males largely ignore them. To men under 40, I'm sure this will make absolutely no sense whatsoever, but I'm sure the other old farts out there will know exactly what I am talking about. When I was 15-45, I had about the same level of control over the need to check out any woman in my vicinity that I had over my breathing - with extreme concentration I could inhibit it for a short while, but not long.
However, as I cruise through my 6th decade, I find that the majority of women I don't even notice, much less covet to the point where I am willing to put up with one second of annoyance in order to suffer their company.
If anything, the entire situation is now turned around and it is women harassing the hell out of me to pay them attention. I read not long ago that Cher, who has coasted the past 4 decades on her ability to attract male attention to her navel, can't get a date - and I perfectly understand why. I'm pretty sure that it was Norman Mailer who said that there was nothing in the world more over-rated than a good lay, and nothing more under-rated than a good shit.
For a lot of us, the game really is OVER, OVER-OVER, not just called until women get more fair. It's time for us to move on to other things and leave the slugging it out to you young folks who still have some investment in the outcome.
As life-and-death as it may seem to you younger guys today, one day you will wake up and realize that you really do no longer give a shit and can't even remember the last time you did. And, as horrible as that may sound to you now, when it happens it will be like getting a "get out of jail free" card. All this crap will no longer affect your life in the slightest, one way or the other.
Life is going to be cold, hard, and VERY lonely for boomer women. Not only do they already outnumber men their age due to higher male mortality, but a huge number of us have figured out the lesson of the computer in the old movie "War Games" - the ONLY winning move is not to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 23, @11:42AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
“...but I haven't met the right man. And no, I don't want a sugardaddy ...”
Let’s see you want a guy who’ll take all the risk (get married, have kids), while you hold all the cards in future child custody, alimony, and support orders. When you decide you’re just too tired of doing all that house work for no money you can just play the "D" card (Divorce). You'd be right to divorce him too. No working man can live up to all the romantic ideals you've learned in your female slanted talk show indoctrinations. You can send your slave husband off to work, and then really put the ball and chain on him any time you feel like it with the full weight of a sexist system of law and justice.
“...I am fully willing to uphold my part of the bargain of taking care of the kids, cleaning, shopping, house whatever...”
Statistics say that any man is a fool to believe this statement considering that 80% of divorces are filed by women. The "right man" hasn't been born who can live up to the romantic demands for time and money, that American society (T.V.) teaches liberated women to demand from men.
The truth is, like most women, you are looking for a sugar daddy. Sorry Western woman, it’s just getting harder and harder for you to find your male slave.
You’re liberated lady. I suggest a sperm bank if you want kids so badly. You have choice, men have none. You can earn just as much as a man if you chose not to opt “out too.” Your liberated, you have more rights and privileges than a man, and you’re still complaining. Why am I not surprised?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
